Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Free Fall thread

Options
11315171819

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    When you look at wtc7's collapse does it look like CD or a building coming down due to fire ?
    It looks like a building coming down due to fire.
    We know that it's not a controlled demolition.
    weisses wrote: »
    Plus you did not ask for a reply ... Your post has nothing to do with the discussion I am trying to have so no its not a post I missed in that regard
    It explains what you are asking for. You are missing it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    It looks like a building coming down due to fire.
    We know that it's not a controlled demolition.

    evidently many demolition experts claim it looks like controlled demolition

    You clearly dont understand how buildings normally behave under fire and buildings that are brought down by CD


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    evidently many demolition experts claim it looks like controlled demolition

    Distortion.

    AE911 have scoured and found a handful of individuals in the demolition industry who they try to hold up as some sort of consensus. They aren't a consensus, they are some individuals

    Like Danny Jowenko, who claimed WTC 7 looked like a CD. What they hide is the fact that when they asked him about the Twin Towers, he said that it was virtually impossible to rig them

    It's simple selection bias. They do the same with pilots, engineers, architects, any experts they can get their hands on, much in the same way that anti-vaxxers rely on a handful of doctors and physicians and medical researchers


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    You clearly dont understand how buildings normally behave under fire and buildings that are brought down by CD

    You are in a position where you are contradicting accepted science and history and consensus on a subject. You have no alternative explanation.

    On top of all this you borrow debunked and faulty talking points from a known conspiracy group. These people are quacks, they've spent more time on the Alex Jones show, than you have spent writing posts here.

    You personal understanding of a building falling due to fire is entirely the issue here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    evidently many demolition experts claim it looks like controlled demolition

    You clearly dont understand how buildings normally behave under fire and buildings that are brought down by CD
    But we know that it isn't a controlled demolition. That's been shown to be the case.
    So all those experts must be wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Why do you think other separate investigations have come to the same conclusion? why have these findings have been so overwhelmingly accepted by recognised groups of experts around the world?

    Why have findings been incorporated into national building codes?

    Why is there no other credible theory?

    Pointed out to you in this thread many times, NIST never once considered Freefall had taken place inside the building. We have them on video discussing the building seven draft paper! We have their comments and descriptions of the collapse and indeed even their computer models of collapse that show no freefall. This is all supporting evidence NIST believe was the collapse occcurred without freefall in Aug 2008. The only sided with the truthers explantation later in Nov 2008 in a updated final paper and now freefall had transpired and truthers were right all along!

    NIST ruling out freefall means their entire material of work about the collapse is suspect as we know freefall happened and its strong evidence for a controlled demolition. Removing a wide area of the building support below from one corner wall to the next corner has never happened at freefall. What is suspicious is the building had full support inside and then went to zero support in a fraction of a second and full collapse began of the entire building on video.

    NIST collapse theory they make a claim steel support and floors dropped before the freefal/collapse trigger event even occurred below. Thier building even with all this rubble rushing down like a wave somehow still preserved it’s orginal shape when the building was made. Which is nonsense. When steel supports gave way under the penthouse, many broke windows got smashed. Why would this not take effect across the entire width of the building before the full collapse? We see no distortions of the wall or broken windows where NIST claims a internal collapse was occurring.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Here's an interesting read for you, and this isn't agreeing fully with the NIST's figures

    Bonus: he gets replies from Chandler

    https://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2019/01/did-wtc7-on-9-11-really-descend-in-free-fall-for-2-25-seconds-a-closer-look-at-the-nist-calculation/

    If you read it he highlights what i have said on here for years. Another poster kept saying it was a misinterpretation of the meaning:D

    From your link
    In their preliminary report NIST had stated that based on the visible evidence it had found that when the exterior facade came down, 18 floors descended in 5.4 seconds, implying an acceleration about 40% lower than free fall acceleration. After questions were raised they had another look and in the final report they acknowledged that for a period of 2.25 seconds (within the 5.4 seconds) there appeared to be acceleration “equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g“. But they also wrote that this was still “consistent with the results of the global collapse analysis

    This Skeptic acknowledging Chandler concerns and its good to see.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Pointed out to you in this thread many times

    You aren't addressing the underlying issue here

    Just because you don't understand or "get" something doesn't mean anything.

    Some individuals cannot understand how man made it through the radiation belts in order to land on the moon. No matter how many times it's explained, no matter how widely accepted by science it is, it doesn't mean a thing, they don't get it, therefore conspiracy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    This Skeptic acknowledging Chandler concerns and its good to see.

    I recommend you reread the story, because you entirely missed the point.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I recommend you reread the story, because you entirely missed the point.

    Read Chandler third post because he explains further why NIST measurements and camera angles are not an accurate way to identify freefall. Stage 1 is fantasy.

    https://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2019/01/did-wtc7-on-9-11-really-descend-in-free-fall-for-2-25-seconds-a-closer-look-at-the-nist-calculation/


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Read Chandler third post because he explains further why NIST measurements and camera angles are not an accurate way to identify freefall. Stage 1 is fantasy.

    This is the conclusion
    Conclusion
    Although it is true that NIST ‘admitted’ that for 2.25 seconds the exterior facade of WTC7 came down at an acceleration equal to free fall acceleration, I think it is fair to state that this was based on a questionable calculation. In my view, an acceleration of 9.46 m/s2 can be defended with arguments that are at least as good as those of NIST.
    Of course, the importance of this all is rather limited as it has no consequences for the models used by NIST to get a grip on why the building collapsed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Read

    A thousand investigations like the NIST could be done into WTC 7.

    I guarantee there would be differences with every single one. There would be debated variables, that's because they are variables. There would be different estimates. There would be different takes on certain specific physics and chemical reactions.

    9/11 conspiracy theorists don't seem to grasp this concept, instead they consistently follow irrational logic

    "Mistake" = conspiracy
    Difference of opinion = conspiracy
    Difference in simulations = conspiracy
    Don't understand something = conspiracy
    etc, etc


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    This is the conclusion

    He was blogging about the calculation NIST agrees about today the 2.25 seconds of freefall. He believes stage 2 took longer (no freefall)

    Quote conclusion you posted.
    Debunkers think fire caused the freefall ( "we know that) Debunkers all believe it was fire that lead to the freefall below. Matter of fact, this guy trying
    to say it even with freefall or no freefall fire would still bring down the building:D


    Chandler bless his heart pointed out to him in the comments the error. And he was friendly to this guy
    One more thing, the duration of freefall is clearly 2.5 seconds when viewed horizontally as it should be measured. The missing quarter second in NIST’s measurement is part of the gradual transition deception due to NIST’s intentionally chosen bad camera angle coupled with the choice of a point midway along the roofline where the anomalous motion would be maximized. I say intentionally chosen because they had all the same videos I have. I got my videos from NIST as part of a FOIA release.

    Chandler responded here why fire causing freefall is not true.
    NIST’s measurement is worse than you suggest. They state that they used Camera 3, as they labeled it, which is a view looking up at the building from West St. Near the onset of downward motion the building flexes laterally, but by choosing a point near the center of the roofline they conflate this lateral motion with the later downward motion. This is the source of the gradual transition seen in Stage 1 of their graph. Any competent scientists would know that to take good measurements you need to eliminate parallax, and since the guys at NIST are competent scientists, they knew what they were doing. They clearly intended to fudge the data to suggest a gradual transition, which they could pass off as some kind of natural process. If you do the measurement using the view that is level with the roofline you will see there is no initial sagging of the roofline and the transition from full support to full freefall is essentially instantaneous. The exact value you get when you fit a straight line to the linear portion of the descent will vary by a percent or so, depending on your choice of points to include in the regression, but your measurement, like mine, should be at or very near 9.8 m/s^2.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    A thousand investigations like the NIST could be done into WTC 7.

    I guarantee there would be differences with every single one. There would be debated variables, that's because they are variables. There would be different estimates. There would be different takes on certain specific physics and chemical reactions.

    9/11 conspiracy theorists don't seem to grasp this concept, instead they consistently follow irrational logic

    "Mistake" = conspiracy
    Difference of opinion = conspiracy
    Difference in simulations = conspiracy
    Don't understand something = conspiracy
    etc, etc

    The rare unusual steel anomalies is evidence of something else having happened. Freefall just one clue of many. Nobody finding holes in steel and material missing from steel after a fire anywhere else in the world. That should be a wake up call.. This should be a repeatable find especially when building seven was not hit by a plane loaded with fuel.

    If aviation fuel fires reach 800 to 1000 degrees Celsius, then ordinary fires must be less than that 600 degrees Celsius? What the lead cause or source for the the melting and erosion at those temps?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The rare unusual steel anomalies is evidence of something else having happened.

    You claimed that you haven't seen video footage of men not planting bombs, therefore that's evidence men planted bombs

    We aren't operating in any realm of logic or rational here


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You claimed that you haven't seen video footage of men not planting bombs, therefore that's evidence men planted bombs

    We aren't operating in any realm of logic or rational here

    We’re not behaving normally on this thread.

    You love trying to persuade people on this thread that one girder slipping from its seat magically collapsed an entire structure? You ignore NIST invented an entire new engineering principle for this to happen and was accepted on just faith it happened?

    If thiS first time in history collapse happened by fire (nonsense of course), still for everybody who believes this narrative should be given the data and allow it to be checked by independent bodies?

    NIST refusal to release their study data is evidence their not confident in their explanation for the collapse of building seven. You often claim the modified the codes after the building collapse, but that strange since nobody can download their data online and check their real time calculations? Frankly the world accepted this study because it was dangerous to openly question it with the war on terror still developing and some obviously have hard time accepting a private group deep inside the US establishment would be so cruel to kill its own citizens, yet the reality is that transpired.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    If thiS first time in history collapse happened by fire

    Here we go again. This is false. But using your logic..

    First time in history buildings were secretly blown up by controlled demolition. Therefore by your logic they can't have been blown up

    No matter how many times the above two sentences are explained to you, you can't understand them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Here we go again. This is false. But using your logic..

    First time in history buildings were secretly blown up by controlled demolition. Therefore by your logic they can't have been blown up

    No matter how many times the above two sentences are explained to you, you can't understand them.

    I asked for one example in Europe, Asia, America and Canada where fire brought down a steel framed high rise and you ran away.

    Partial local collapse is not a full building collapse.

    NIST has never seen a fire cause a progressive collapse in a steel framed high rise before in the places i listed above. Is that not strange since supposedly fire can bring down steel framed high rises, yet by miracle other buildings around the world stood up to fire?

    You don't find it suspect it all happened during a terrorist attack and that NIST had to change the construction to start a collapse in a model that nobody can check the data for the model today?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    First time in history buildings were secretly blown up by controlled demolition. Therefore by your logic they can't have been blown up.



    Difference is we know controlled demolition can bring down any building of any type.

    You prefer the one off miracle (three to be exact on one day) to be more reasonable and sounder explanation.

    Secret thing is nonsense. They would hardly broadcast the inside demolition job to the world :rolleyes: You have no evidence men did not walk into the building and do it. You assume it's impossible based on nothing. You don't know the level of access this crew had to the buildings and who was involved.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Difference is we know controlled demolition can bring down any building of any type.
    But you contend that the demolition is not a typical one as it used nano thermite.
    No building in history has ever been demolished by any kind of thermite.
    Thus your logic says it's impossible.

    Also as we've shown it can't have been nano thermite as there was no aluminium oxide found in the dust and we know that nano thermite cannot produce the instant cutting action that a controlled demolition with free fall requires.

    Why do you insist on arguing for a theory you've agreed is impossible?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You have no evidence men did not walk into the building and do it. You assume it's impossible based on nothing. You don't know the level of access this crew had to the buildings and who was involved.
    You have no evidence that a space laser wasn't fired...

    Therefore it was a space laser according to your logic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    I asked for one example

    Your logic is: if something hasn't happened before, then it can't happen

    According to you, it's the first time in history skyscrapers were secretly demolished, therefore, according to your logic it couldn't have happened

    It's a complete contradiction.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    NIST has responded to AE911 truth.
    The National Institute of Standards and Technology this past Friday issued an update regarding the pending “request for correction” to its 2008 report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. In an email sent to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Daniel G. Cipra, a senior analyst in NIST’s Management and Organization office, wrote:

    “Your request for correction of information under the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Guidelines for Ensuring the Quality of Information Disseminated to the Public dated April 15, 2020, is currently under review. While our goal is to respond within sixty days to such requests, we are unable to do so in this case. A response providing the Agency’s view will be forwarded to you as soon as possible."
    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/695-nist-issues-update-on-pending-request-for-correction-to-building-7-report


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    They are referring to this craptacular document
    https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/RFC-to-NIST-WTC7-Report-04-15-20.pdf

    Remains to be seen whether they ignore it, or actually address it. Nothing they produce will ever satisfy those who have no intention of looking at the event objectivity, or those who still need to keep milking the tragedy for conspiracy subscriptions


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    They are referring to this craptacular document
    https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/RFC-to-NIST-WTC7-Report-04-15-20.pdf

    Remains to be seen whether they ignore it, or actually address it. Nothing they produce will ever satisfy those who have no intention of looking at the event objectivity, or those who still need to keep milking the tragedy for conspiracy subscriptions

    Looks like they have ignored it date August 13 passed, even though the promised to address every point made by AE911 truth in a letter in May/ June. No accountability so AE911 will likely start legal proceedings if they have not replied?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Looks like they have ignored it date August 13 passed, even though the promised to address every point made by AE911 truth in a letter in May/ June. No accountability so AE911 will likely start legal proceedings if they have not replied?
    Any word on when they are going to publish the Hulsey paper in a peer reviewed journal?
    Or explain any of the shady fraudulent crap surrounding that fake study?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    AE911 truth has released new information.

    Apparently NIST contacted them two days before the August 13th deadline.
    Two days before the August 13 deadline, NIST informed Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) that the response had been completed but was undergoing review by the U.S. Department of Commerce. When asked, NIST did not give an expected time frame for the review to be concluded.
    Under the procedure governing requests submitted to NIST, the agency was supposed to provide an initial decision within 120 days of the submission, which made August 13, 2020, the deadline.

    If NIST elects in its initial decision not to take the corrective action sought, it must provide a “point-by-point response to any relevant data quality arguments contained in the request.”

    The requesters would then have 30 days to file an appeal with NIST Associate Director of Laboratory Programs James K. Olthoff. The procedure governing requests dictates that “No individuals who were involved in the initial denial will be involved in the review of or response to the appeal.” Mr. Olthoff’s decision would constitute the final decision of the Department of Commerce, of which NIST is a part.
    should NIST fail to comply with the procedure governing requests (in a manner more severe than the current delay) or should it fail to rectify the information quality violations documented in the request, AE911Truth and its fellow requesters will likely pursue legal action under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/703-nist-late-on-response-to-wtc-7-request-for-correction


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    AE911 truth has released new information.

    Apparently NIST contacted them two days before the August 13th deadline.

    So crank fraudsters are bothering people and wasting their time to try and stay in the headlines.

    It's a bit sad of them.

    But then, must be desperate when everything else they've done in the last while has been an utter waste of time, money and effort.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    So crank fraudsters are bothering people and wasting their time to try and stay in the headlines.

    They need to keep feeding their subscribers crumbs of hope. It's not like they are going to turn around and admit the whole thing is nonsense and stop all that money flowing.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    They need to keep feeding their subscribers crumbs of hope. It's not like they are going to turn around and admit the whole thing is nonsense and stop all that money flowing.

    Rubbish.

    We learn what NIST has to say when they hand over their internal review work. After 12 years hopefully they might be some fresh eyes looking over the 2008 report and they come out and admit there were weaknesses in the report? That's the best outcome. I’m really interested to know what they think 12 years later, it be an interesting day when they answer back.


Advertisement